GNOME3 and au revoir WAS: systemd: please stop trying to take over the world :)
dmalcolm at redhat.com
Fri Jun 17 19:03:10 UTC 2011
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 09:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 00:30 +0900, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 10:04 -0400, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:33:18 +0900
> > > 夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato at yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Considering the frequent calls of "Gnome 3 has failed at its task" or
> > > > the "GUI has failed if the user must ____" makes me wonder: Where is
> > > > the task definition or specification against which the implementation
> > > > has failed?
> > > >
> > > > "Doesn't live up to my expectation" is very different from "Doesn't
> > > > comply with spec" and both are different from "Is a bad design".
> > >
> > > How about a spec then of what Gnome3 was trying to achiece, and how
> > > about those who like it telling us how Gnome3 achieved those things?
Links to large amounts of information on this were posted in a different
branch of this thread:
> > And this is precisely my point. At the moment criticism and defense both
> > seem a bit aimless because we aren't seeing any references to the
> > interface research someone said happened, interface specifications or
> > even a concept discussion/summary about what gnome-shell was supposed to
> > achieve. It was a serious undertaking, so I'm certain they had goals
> > which were at least clear to someone at some point.
> and all the links listed at the end of that page.
Likewise, see the copious information linked to in the email linked to
To save people having to scroll up, I'll post the link again here:
Unfortunately this email thread appears to have descended into the
"flame war as historical inevitability" dysfunction described here:
Hope this is helpful
More information about the devel